Skip to main content
PLOS ONE logoLink to PLOS ONE
. 2023 Mar 9;18(3):e0260563. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0260563

A marmoset model for Mycobacterium avium complex pulmonary disease

Jay Peters 1,2,*, Diego Jose Maselli 1,2, Mandeep Mangat 1, Jacqueline J Coalson 1, Cecilia Hinojosa 1, Luis Giavedoni 2, Barbara A Brown-Elliott 3, Edward Chan 4, David Griffith 4,5
Editor: Selvakumar Subbian6
PMCID: PMC9997968  PMID: 36893126

Abstract

Rationale

Mycobacterium avium complex, is the most common nontuberculous mycobacterial respiratory pathogen in humans. Disease mechanisms are poorly understood due to the absence of a reliable animal model for M. avium complex pulmonary disease.

Objectives

The objectives of this study were to assess the susceptibility, immunologic and histopathologic responses of the common marmoset (Callithrix jacchus) to M. avium complex pulmonary infection.

Methods

7 adult female marmosets underwent endobronchial inoculation with 108 colony-forming units of M. intracellulare and were monitored for 30 or 60 days. Chest radiograph was assessed at baseline (prior to infection) and at the time of sacrifice (30 days for 3 animals and 60 days for 4 animals), and bronchoalveolar lavage cytokines, histopathology and cultures of the bronchoalveolar lavage, lungs, liver and kidney were assessed at time of sacrifice. Serum cytokines were monitored at baseline and weekly for 30 days for all animals and at 60 days for those alive. Group differences in serum cytokine measurements between those that tested positive versus negative for the M. intracellulare infection were assessed using a series of linear mixed models.

Measurements and main results

Five of seven animals (two at 30 days and three at 60 days of infection) had positive lung cultures for M. intracellulare. Extra-pulmonary cultures were positive in three animals. All animals appeared healthy throughout the study. All five animals with positive lung cultures had radiographic changes consistent with pneumonitis. At 30 days, those with M. intracellulare lung infection showed granulomatous inflammation, while at 60 days there were fewer inflammatory changes but bronchiectasis was noted. The cytokine response in the bronchoalveolar lavage fluid was uniformly greater in the animals with positive M. intracellulare cultures than those without a productive infection, with greater levels at 30-days compared to 60-days. Similarly, serum cytokines were more elevated in the animals that had positive M. intracellulare cultures compared to those without a productive infection, peaking 14–21 days after inoculation.

Conclusion

Endobronchial instillation of M. intracellulare resulted in pulmonary mycobacterial infection in marmosets with a differential immune response, radiographic and histopathologic abnormalities, and an indolent course consistent with M. avium complex lung infection in humans.

Introduction

Mycobacterium avium complex (MAC) is the most common nontuberculous mycobacterial (NTM) respiratory pathogen in humans [1, 2]. MAC comprises multiple species and subspecies including M. avium and M. intracellulare, the two most important MAC respiratory pathogens [35]. Typically, these two species are both reported as “MAC,” but their environmental sources differ, and there is evidence indicating differential pathogenicity and clinical disease severity between the two species [6, 7]. Since MAC is ubiquitous in the environment and exposure is likely unavoidable, it is apparent that some form of host susceptibility must also be present for MAC lung disease to occur [3, 4, 8]. In that context, pulmonary MAC disease occurs primarily in patients with structural lung disease, especially bronchiectasis and emphysema, without demonstrable systemic immune suppression [3, 4, 8]. Pathophysiologic questions are further complicated because MAC lung disease can evolve in two forms, either fibro-cavitary disease similarly to pulmonary tuberculosis (TB), or as a more indolent infection associated radiographically with nodules and bronchiectasis (nodular/bronchiectatic disease) [35].

A major impediment to greater understanding of fundamental pathophysiologic mechanisms surrounding MAC lung disease is the lack of a reproducible animal model that can replicate cellular, biochemical and pathological events observed in human MAC lung disease. The relevance of murine models of MAC infection for human MAC lung disease is not established and has uncertain applicability [9]. Presumably, MAC lung infection, in a host species more related to humans, would be more informative and has been achieved with endobronchial instillation of M. avium in a rhesus macaque [10]. While it also remains unclear if the mechanisms of disease establishment and progression in this model are pertinent to human MAC lung disease [10], an animal model using a species phylogenetically even closer to humans should provide a better approximation to the human mycobacterial response.

The common marmoset (Callithrix jacchus) has been used as a model for TB lung infection [912]. Endotracheal instillation of TB strains in marmosets results in pulmonary abnormalities covering the entire spectrum of lesions observed in human TB patients including cavitation [1114]. However, the utility of marmosets as a model for human TB disease is limited because marmosets are exceptionally susceptible to M. tuberculosis [1114]. This susceptibility to mycobacterial infection combined with pathophysiologic similarities between marmosets and humans to M. tuberculosis infection are potential advantages for utilizing marmosets to study infection with a relatively non-virulent human mycobacterial pathogen such as MAC. Additionally, marmosets are smaller than macaques with relatively shorter life span, allowing feasible studies into advanced age. For these reasons, we investigated the potential of marmosets as a model for MAC lung disease.

Methods

Non-human primate research regulations

Seven adult colony-bred female marmosets (Callithrix jacchus) were purchased from the Southwest National Primate Center, San Antonio, TX, and were found to be free of known primate bacterial and viral pathogens based on routine surveillance. The study and use of non-human primates were conducted in accordance with the Guidelines established by the Weatherall report and conformed to National Institutes of Health guidelines [15, 16]. All animal work was approved by the University of Texas Health Science Center, San Antonio (UTHSC-SA) and the University of Texas Health Science Center, Tyler (UTHSCT) Institutional Animal Care and Use Committees and the Southwest National Primate Research Center Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee of the Texas Biomedical Research Institute (Texas Biomed). Animals were housed separately and had vital signs (heart rate, temperature, and oxygen saturation) monitored closely throughout the experimental period. They were weighed daily, measured for nutritional and fluid intake, and examined twice daily for normal interactions with staff members.

Animal infection and sample collection

The seven adult marmosets were inoculated endobronchially at the level of the main carina using a special narrow diameter bronchoscope with one mL of a 108 CFU/mL M. intracellulare obtained from the Mycobacteria/Nocardia Research Laboratory at the UTHSCT. All procedures (bronchoscopy, blood draws and euthanasia) were conducted under ketamine anesthesia with the additional use of isoflurane anesthesia with bronchoscopy and bronchoalveolar lavage (BAL) in the presence of veterinary staff. Each animal underwent assessment of serum chemistry, and complete blood count prior to inoculation and on the day of euthanasia. Because there are no previous comparable studies with this primate, we sacrificed a group of animals at 30 days and another group at 60 days to optimize the chance of recovering M. intracelluare as well as to define the time course of an evolving inflammatory response. Cytokine analysis was obtained prior to inoculation with M. intracellualre and on a weekly basis from day 0 to day 30 for all animals and again on day 60 for the animals sacrificed at day 60. All the animals had BAL performed prior to euthanasia at either 30- or 60-days post-inoculation. The animals were then taken directly to necropsy by a primate pathologist.

Imaging

Supine postero-anterior and lateral chest X-rays were obtained at baseline and prior to sacrifice.

Histopathology

Formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded tissue sections were deparaffinized and stained with hematoxylin and eosin for histopathological analysis as well as for acid-fast bacteria (AFB) stain. Histopathologic images were obtained using an Axioplan microscope (Carl Zeiss, Jena, Germany) with a Spot Insight camera (Diagnostic Instruments Inc., Sterling Heights, MI).

Microbiologic assessments

A macrolide- and aminoglycoside-resistant (clarithromycin MIC >16 μg/mL and amikacin MIC >64 μg/mL) isolate of M. intracellulare, previously identified by 16S rRNA gene sequence, was prepared for inoculating the marmosets. The clinical isolate was grown on Middlebrook 7H10 agar. After adequate growth was obtained (approximately 7–10 days), several colonies were transferred to 3 mL of sterile distilled water to prepare a suspension with optical density equal to a 0.5 McFarland standard by nephelometer reading. The inoculum was chosen since this turbidity represents the approximate number of organisms (108 CFU/mL) present in the matched turbidity McFarland standard used for antimicrobial susceptibility testing as recommended by the Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute (CLSI) [17]. The suspension was incubated for 7 days at 35°C and 1–3 mL aliquots prepared to be used to inoculate the marmosets.

BAL and tissue samples were processed and cultured for mycobacteria by the Mycobacteria/Nocardia Research Laboratory at the UTHSCT, using standard decontamination procedures, fluorochrome microscopy, solid media culture on a biplate of Middlebrook 7H10 agar with and without antibiotics, and a broth culture (BACTEC 960, Becton Dickinson and Company, Sparks, MD, VersaTrek, Thermofisher, formerly Trek Diagnostic Systems, Cleveland, Ohio) as previously described [18]. M. intracullulare isolates were identified using AccuProbe (Hologic-GenProbe, San Diego, CA, as previously described [18]. In vitro susceptibility testing of MAC isolates was performed as previously described [17]. M. intracellulare growth on broth and solid media was assessed using semi-quantitative scoring: growth on broth medium only = “pos”, growth in broth medium plus 1–49 countable colonies (cc) on solid medium, 50–99 cc on solid medium = 1+, 100–199 cc on solid medium = 2+, 200–299 cc on solid medium = 3+, greater than 300 cc on solid medium = 4+ [19].

Cytokine analysis

Batched BAL supernatant and plasma samples were stored at -80°C. They were then collectively thawed and analyzed in duplicate using the Invitrogen Cytokine Monkey Magnetic 28-plex Panel which includes monocyte chemo-attractant protein 1 (MCP-1), interleukin-12 (IL-12), granulocyte-monocyte colony stimulating factor (GM-CSF), macrophage inflammatory protein 1 beta (MIP 1-β), interferon-gamma (IFNγ), monokine induced by interferon-gamma (MIG), migration inhibition factor (MIF), IL-1 receptor antagonist (IL-1Ra), tumor necrosis factor (TNF), IL-2, IL-4, IL-8, intercellular adhesion molecule (ICAM), and RANTES (Regulated on Activation, normal T cell Expressed and Secreted). For animals sacrificed at day 30, plasma samples were obtained at baseline and on days 7, 14, 21, 30 with BAL samples collected at day 30. For animals sacrificed at day 60, plasma samples were collected at baseline and on days 7, 14, 21, 28, and 60 along with BAL samples collected at day 60.

Tissue analysis

At the time of sacrifice, fresh tissues from the mediastinal lymph nodes, liver, spleen, and kidneys were prepared for culture. The lungs were resected en-bloc and inspected visually for areas of inflammation. One lobe that appeared abnormal was isolated, tied off, and resected for culture. The remaining segments of lung were suspended after cannulating the trachea and then inflated with formalin infused at a height of 30 centimeters. After inflation, the tracheal was tied off and the lungs; as well as sections from the liver, spleen, and kidneys were submerged in 100% formalin for a period of 10 days. All tissues were then sent to the Central Pathology Lab at the UTHSC-SA for processing and staining.

Statistical analysis

All cytokine measurements were log-transformed. Cytokine measurements below the limit of detection were imputed using 12LDLcytokine, where LDLcytokine is the lower limit of detection for a given cytokine and has a value of 1 for all cytokines for the assay used. Longitudinal trajectory plots were generated for all log-transformed cytokines to assess the curvilinear nature of cytokine response through time. A series of linear mixed effects models were utilized to assess differences in log-transformed cytokine measurements between animals that tested positive versus negative for M. intracellulare infection. All models included a term for group (+ve vs. -ve for M. intracellulare infection), time, time2 and time3 variables, a random intercept term for animal, and an unstructured error covariance structure to account for correlation between repeated measurements from the same animal. Time, measured in weeks, was treated as a continuous variable in all models. The quadratic and cubic terms for time were included based on initial assessment of the cytokine trajectory plots.

Results

Clinical and standard laboratory assessments of the M. intracellulare-infected marmosets

All animals had normal growth and behavior as well as normal blood chemistries and cellular counts prior to infection with M. intracellulare. Following instillation of M. intracellulare, the animals were regularly assessed for evidence of illness as per protocol for Texas Biomed. Throughout the study period, none of the animals displayed signs of respiratory disease such as cough or tachypnea. Infected animals initially lost weight during the first two weeks but returned toward baseline by the day of sacrifice (Table 1). All the marmosets exhibited normal behavior and activity until the time of sacrifice.

Table 1. Summary of microbiologic, radiographic and pathologic findings from each animal.

Animal (wt-pre/post, gms) Day sacrificed M. intracellulare AFB culture1,2 CXR Path
Lung Spleen Kidney Liver BAL
1 (474/473) 30 cc cc cc + +
2 (390/388) 30 3+ cc + +
3 (480/481) 30
- - - -
4 (500/497) 60 cc + +
5 (401/408) 60 cc pos + +
cc
6 (486/472) 60 cc + +
- -
7 (475/473) 60
- - - -
Chest X-ray 3 Lung histopathology 3
1: RLL posterior consolidation 1: RML, RLL, Left lung: diffuse involvement with lymphocytes & monocytes. Early granulomatous inflammation, few giant cells. Subpleural and mediastinal subscapular inflammation
2: RLL posterior consolidation 2: Right lung 60% consolidated, mixed lymphocytes, monocytes, numerous granulomas and giant cells, significant edema around lymphatics. Left lung 10% consolidation, similar findings
3. Unremarkable 3: RML, RLL, LLL: normal
4. RLL posterior consolidation 4: RUL, RLL, LLL: Resolving inflammation with lymphocytes /monocytes worse in subpleural region; no granulomas; RML airway damage extending to the pleural surface with bronchiectasis
5. RLL posterior consolidation 5: RUL, RLL, LLL: Mild/moderate inflammation with lymphocytes/ monocytes, and some PMNs RLL
6. RLL posterior consolidation 6: RUL, RLL, LLL: Mild/moderate inflammation with lymph0cytes/ monocytes, RLL with early bronchiectasis
7. Unremarkable 7: RML, RLL, LLL: Normal

Change in weight, microbiology, pathology and radiology: (1) M. intracellulare growth on broth and solid media: growth on broth medium only = “pos”, growth in broth medium plus 1–49 countable colonies (cc)on solid medium, 50–99 cc on solid medium = 1+, 100–199 cc on solid medium = 2+, 200–299 cc on solid medium = 3+, greater than 300 cc on solid medium = 4+ (Ref 19). (2)No specimens that were submitted for AFB stain and culture to the mycobacteriology laboratory had a positive AFB stain; however, some lung specimens submitted for histopathologic analysis were AFB stain positive. (3)RUL = right upper lobe, RML = right middle lobe, RLL = right lower lobe, LUL = left upper lobe, LLL = left lower lobe

Mycobacterial burden

For the three marmosets that were sacrificed at day 30, two were culture positive for M. intracellulare in the lungs and spleens, and one was culture negative for the mycobacteria in all organs (Table 1). Of the two animals with lung culture positivity, one also had positive M. intracellulare cultures in the spleen and kidneys and the other also had positive culture in the spleen. Interestingly, all three animals had negative BAL cultures at day 30 just prior to euthanasia. No specimen submitted for AFB stain (smear) and culture was AFB stain positive.

For the four marmosets that were sacrificed at day 60, three had positive M. intracellulare cultures of the lungs and one was negative for the mycobacteria in all organs (Table 1). Of the three animals with positive M. intracellulare lung cultures, only one had a positive extra-pulmonary culture in the spleen and liver. Similar to the marmosets infected for 30 days, all had negative BAL cultures for mycobacteria at day 60. No specimen submitted for AFB culture was AFB stain positive, although some tissue specimens were AFB smear positive on histopathologic analysis.

On semi-quantitative analysis, all positive AFB cultures were scored “countable colonies”, 1–49 colonies on solid media) with two exceptions (Table 1). There was no apparent correlation between the degree of culture positivity from the lungs and the presence of positive extra-pulmonary cultures. All positive M. intracellulare cultures had the identical in vitro susceptibility pattern as the originally instilled M. intracellulare isolate with macrolide and amikacin resistance. Staining with fluorochrome confirmed the presence of AFB in the M. intracellulare-infected lung tissue samples (Fig 1).

Fig 1. Granulomatous inflammation with positive AFB stain.

Fig 1

Histopathologic examination from marmoset #2 that was sacrificed 30 days after inoculation with M. intracellulare. Most of the right lung was consolidated with mixed lymphocytes, monocytes, and numerous granulomas. Occasional AFB (noted by arrow) were identified in the areas of granulomatous inflammation.

Chest radiographic features

The chest radiographs of all seven marmosets were within normal limits prior to infection with M. intracellulare. Following infection, the chest radiographs were abnormal with evidence of patchy consolidation in 5/5 animals with lung cultures positive for M. intracellulare (Fig 2). The animal with the culture score of “5” on semi-quantitative analysis also had the most extensive radiographic abnormalities (Table 1, Fig 1). The two animals with negative lung cultures for M. intracelluare had no end of study chest radiographic abnormalities.

Fig 2. Chest radiograph prior to necropsy from marmoset #2 showing a superior segment right lower lobe infiltrate.

Fig 2

Right lower lobe consolidation with numerous granulomas were confirmed on histologic exam.

Histopathologic findings

For the 5 infected animals, all five had visible hemorrhagic abnormalities in the lungs. Histopathologic features in the lungs of animals with culturable M. intracelluare at day 30 included mixed monocytic and lymphocytic infiltration around the bronchovascular bundle extending into the alveolar space. Numerous early granulomas with associated giant cells and occasional neutrophils and eosinophils were observed (Fig 3). Subpleural intra-alveolar nodules with severe pleuritis were seen in three animals. One animal had marked enlargement of the mediastinal lymph nodes with striking subcapsular mediastinal lymphadenitis. At day 60, animals were noted to have resolving inflammation in the lung parenchyma with residual bronchitis and bronchiolitis. Two animals had findings consistent with early bronchiectasis. Minimal or no granulomatous inflammation was noted by day 60. The spleen, kidney, and liver histologic sections from the animals with positive cultures from those organs did not show abnormalities including evidence of inflammation typical of mycobacterial infection.

Fig 3. Animal #2, day 30 histology taken from the right middle lobe showing early granuloma with giant cells, mixed lymphocytic/monocytic infiltration with occasional neutrophils and eosinophils.

Fig 3

Similar findings with numerous granulomas were identified in much of the right lower lobe.

BAL cytokines

Cytokine and chemokine levels were also quantified in the BAL fluids of all animals prior to sacrifice at either day 30 or day 60. To varying degrees, BAL cytokine levels from the animals with positive lung cultures at either the day 30 or day 60 of infection (total n = 5) had increased levels of MIF, MIP-1α, MIP-1β, IL-1Ra, MIG, ICAM, IFNγ, RANTES, and TNF, compared to animals without a productive infection (total n = 2). BAL levels for all the cytokines and chemokines were greater at day 30 except for MIF, which was greater at day 60. BAL cytokine levels tracked serum cytokines but remained elevated to day 60 (see below). Cytokines and chemokines in the 28-cytokine kit not mentioned were below the detection limit for both the serum and BAL assays.

Cytokines

Seven IFN-g and nine MIG measurements below the limit of detection were imputed as per protocol. Compared to animals that tested negative for the M. intracellulate infection, cytokine measurements were consistently significantly higher in animals that tested positive for the infection (p<0.05; Table 2). Mean log-cytokine measurements for animals that tested positive were 1.42, 1.18, 0.99, 0.51, 0.32 and 0.26 units higher for IFN-g, MIG, MIF, MIP-1a, IL-1Ra and MIP-1b, respectively (Table 2). We also observed significant cubic relationship with time for IFN-g, MIF, MIP-1a and MIP-1b, and a significant quadratic relationship with time for IL-1Ra. For all cytokines, increase in response continued for approximately 14 to 21 days, followed by some decline for both groups (Fig 4).

Table 2. Temporal change in cytokine expression.

Cytokine Predictor term Mean change 95% CI P-value
IFN-γ Group:Positive 1.42 (1.14 to 1.73) <0.001
Time 1.15 (0.73 to 1.57) <0.001
Time2 -0.26 (-0.41 to -0.11) 0.002
Time3 0.02 (0.004 to 0.03) 0.018
MIG Group:Positive 1.18 (0.80 to 1.55) <0.001
Time 0.55 (0.01 to 1.08) 0.064
Time2 -0.05 (-0.24 to 0.13) 0.611
Time3 -0.0002 (-0.02 to 0.01) 0.985
MIF Group:Positive 0.99 (0.27 to 1.69) 0.045
Time 0.80 (0.53 to 1.07) <0.001
Time2 -0.21 (-0.31 to -0.12) <0.001
Time3 0.01 (0.01 to 0.02) <0.001
MIP-1α Group:Positive 0.51 (0.36 to 0.66) 0.001
Time 0.40 (0.21 to 0.58) <0.001
Time2 -0.11 (-0.17 to -0.05) 0.002
Time3 0.01 (0.002 to 0.01) 0.009
IL-1Ra Group:Positive 0.32 (0.11 to 0.53) 0.031
Time 0.36 (0.13 to 0.60) 0.006
Time2 -0.09 (-0.17 to -0.01) 0.047
Time3 0.01 (-0.001 to 0.01) 0.134
MIP-1β Group:Positive 0.26 (0.12 to 0.40) 0.016
Time 0.44 (0.24 to 0.63) <0.001
Time2 -0.11 (-0.18 to -0.05) 0.004
Time3 0.01 (0.002 to 0.01) 0.016

IFN-γ = interferon-gamma; MIG = monokine induced by gamma-interferon; MIF = migration inhibitory factor

MIP-1α = macrophage inflammatory protein-1-alpha; IL-1Ra = interleukin-1 receptor antagonist

MIP-1β = macrophage inflammatory protein-1-beta.

Changes in log-transformed cytokine measurements, 95% CI and p-value based on a series of linear mixed models including log-transformed cytokine as a response variable and predictor terms for group, time (measured in weeks), time2 and time3 as fixed effects. Group: Positive indicates mean change in animals that tested positive for M. intracellulare infection relative to animals that tested negative for the infection.

Fig 4. Predicted mean log-transformed cytokine response and 95% confidence band by time (measured in weeks) in animals that tested positive (blue line) versus negative (red line) for M. intracellulare infection based on linear mixed model fits.

Fig 4

Discussion

In this study, we successfully established pulmonary M. intracellulare infection in five of the seven healthy female marmosets. We chose female marmosets for this investigation due to the predominance of human M. avium and M. intracellulare lung disease in women [35]. The animals showed no discernable clinical signs of lung infection, such as cough, decreased activity or weight loss, suggesting that the inoculation resulted in a “sub-clinical” infection. While there was culture positivity in extra-pulmonary organs in a few animals, there were no accompanying histopathologic findings. This type of indolent infection is consistent with the nodular/bronchiectasis form of M. intracellulare lung disease in humans [35].

All M. intracellulare isolates cultured from the infected animals showed the same in vitro susceptibility pattern as the M. intracellulare isolate instilled in the animals, specifically, in vitro resistance to macrolide and amikacin, precluding the possibility of environmental M. intracellulare contamination of the tissue (and BAL) specimens. Two animals, one sacrificed at 30 days and one at 60 days, did not show evidence of infection. For both of these animals, there was a priori a question about the adequacy of the endotracheal M. intracellulare challenge with technical problems resulting in a reduction in the amount of inoculum delivered.

The serum and BAL cytokine and chemokine levels for animals sacrificed at 30 and 60 days showed variability between animals but there were consistently higher levels for five animals with a productive M. intracellulare infection compared to the two animals without recoverable M. intracelluare from any of the organs.

Comparing serum and BAL cytokine and chemokine levels at both 30 days and 60 days for each cytokine, two general findings are that the serum levels peaked approximately day 14–30 that tapered off by day 60; whereas, the BAL cytokine and chemokine levels remained elevated in the BAL even at day 60 in the M. intracellulare infected animals, suggesting a stronger local effect of the infection than a systemic one. Although there were consistent trends in cytokine/chemokine response to infection there was considerable variability between animals in the magnitude of response.

Our findings are consistent with those published for other mycobacterial diseases [20]. MIP-1 α/β (now known as CCL3/CCL4)–members of the C-C superfamily associated with the early immune response–peaked at day 14 in the M. intracellulare-infected animals. This may account for the mixed monocytic/neutrophilic response seen in our model. IFNγ, considered to be essential for the induction of granulomatous inflammation, peaked between days 14–21. This was associated with a rise in MIF, known to be induced by IFNγ, which peaked between days 14–30. MIF is felt to contribute to detrimental inflammation but may be crucial in controlling infection caused by mycobacterial diseases [21, 22]. RANTES (CCL-5), which promotes macrophage chemotaxis and upregulation, peaked between days 30–60. High levels of TNF, the only serum cytokine not persistently higher at day 60, has been associated with necrosis in animal models of tuberculosis and was not observed in our model. As noted, although there were consistent trends in cytokine/chemokine response to infection in our study, there was considerable variability between animals in the magnitude of response.

Histopathological analysis of the M. intracellulare culture-positive lungs showed typical abnormalities consistent with granulomatous inflammation with giant cells but no evidence of necrosis, the latter consistent with the absence of TNF. Stains of lung tissue were inconsistently AFB smear positive yet consistently culture positive for M. intracellulare, similar to findings in patients with MAC lung disease [35]. Additionally, by day 60, the lungs showed resolving inflammation with persistent bronchitis and bronchiolitis and early evidence of bronchiectasis. These latter findings, in the context of persistently positive MAC cultures, would be consistent with chronic mycobacterial lung infections in humans.

Fibro-cavitary forms of MAC lung infection, including M. intracellulare, are clearly associated with bronchiectasis formation, but it has never been established in the nodular/bronchiectasis form of MAC lung disease, whether MAC can initiate bronchiectasis formation [23]. The current consensus is that bronchiectasis likely precedes MAC infection for most patients and is, in fact, the critical predisposition for the establishment of MAC lung infection [35]. Our results suggest that the MAC infection per se has the potential to cause bronchiectasis formation. Another possibility is that if some degree of pre-existing bronchiectasis is present prior to the establishment of MAC lung infection the bronchiectasis may contribute to or accelerate further bronchiectasis formation.

Winthrop et al. published results with three rhesus macaques infected with escalating doses (106, 107, 108 CFU) of M. avium subsp. hominissuis strain 101 administered endobronchially [10]. The animals that received 109 CFU M. avium developed a right lung opacity radiographically on day 14 post-infection. The radiographic abnormality was associated with recovery of M. avium in BAL fluid culture. Similar to our findings, there were mid-infection increases in circulating cytokines, IL-6, IL-12 and IFNγ with peak levels at day 14 post- inoculation for IL-12, day 21 for IFNγ and day 28 for IL-6. BAL cytokines that were elevated peaked at mid-infection (42 days post inoculation) included, IL-6, IL-12, IFNγ, TNF, MIP-1β. Interestingly, only IL-6 did not return to baseline at the end of the infection period.

Our findings, from a pathophysiologic perspective, are generally consistent with the findings from Winthrop et al. [10]. It is possible that some dissimilarities could be due to differences in virulence and pathogenicity between M. intracellulare and M. avium (as has been noted in humans), differences in disease pathophysiology between the rhesus macaque and marmoset, or both [6, 7].

A novel finding in this animal model was the positive cultures for M. intracellulare in extra-pulmonary organs including spleen, liver and kidney, without apparent clinically detectable infection in the extra-pulmonary organs as well as an absence of discernable inflammatory response in the involved organs. It is possible that the apparent dissemination of the organism is related to the relative susceptibility of marmosets to mycobacteria, although in contrast to TB disease in marmosets, the M. intracellulare infected animals did not die or even develop clinical signs of disease with the dissemination. Alternatively, M. intracellulare lung infection may be pathophysiologically similarly to a latent TB state with early dissemination followed by immune-mediated control of the infection in extra-pulmonary organs. The emergence of disseminated M. avium complex disease in individuals with advanced AIDS would lend credence to this notion of a latent NTM infection with subsequent reactivation with development of an immunocompromised state.

We cannot confidently assert that any current animal model faithfully replicates the pathophysiologic events associated with human MAC lung disease. With the current level of knowledge, there is no reliable way to correlate the animal findings of early and evolving MAC infection with those from humans, which are largely unknown. While this study does not present a comprehensive description of MAC lung disease pathophysiology, we believe that potential exists with the marmoset MAC lung disease model to accomplish this goal.

One important potential advantage of marmosets for studying M. intracellulare or M. avium lung disease is that they are relatively susceptible to NTM lung infection so that establishment of M. intracellulare lung infection does not require an immune compromised state or airway injury. Based on our success in establishing M. intracellulare infection in 5/7 challenged animals, marmosets appear to be a reproducible model for establishing M. intracellulare lung infection which could impact several areas of investigation. First, this model could more rigorously identify mechanisms of host susceptibility and disease progression pertinent to humans. For example, marmosets could help identify virulence differences between M. intracellulare and M. avium, and might also serve as a model for less common NTM pathogens such as M. abscessus or M. xenopi. Second, a reliable non-human primate model of MAC lung infection could also prove more informative and predictive of drug responses than current non-primate models. Third, the development of bronchiectasis in the marmosets, even after a short follow-up time, could provide insights into the pathophysiology of this complex process. Fourth, translational studies comparing the immune response in the lung tissues of MAC-infected marmosets with that of surgically removed lung tissues of MAC lung disease patients may provide insights into the pathogenesis of progressive NTM lung disease in humans.

There are several limitations to this study. Although significant group differences were observed in cytokine response between animals that tested positive verses negative for the M. intracellulare infection, we acknowledge the limitation posed by small sample sizes in both groups, especially at the later time points. As such, the analyses performed here are exploratory and need to be verified by further studies. We also did not assess cellular activity by BAL prior to and after challenge with M. intracellulare. The marmoset is a small non-human primate and we were unsure of the safety of repetitive bronchoscopy and BAL. Additionally, we did not demonstrate a dose-response to MAC in this model. While this would have strengthened the model, a larger number of animals would have been required and was too expensive for an initial study. The inoculum of MAC was based on the dose causing infection in the rhesus macaque [10]. In this study by Winthrop et. al., three oophorectomized female macaques were exposed to 106, 107, or 108 of MAC. Only the animal exposed to 108 of MAC developed radiologic and histologic infection. The fact that the dose of inoculum at 108 was appropriate is supported by the observation that two of the animals in this study received a limited amount of inoculum and neither developed radiographic or histologic changes. Additionally, we injected 108 of M. Abscessus into marmosets (two at 30 days; 1 at 60 days) and none of the animals developed any radiologic or histologic changes (data not shown). Another limitation of our study was an inability to demonstrate the effect of gender in the development of infection. Female marmosets were chosen because MAC disease in humans is predominately seen in women. Chest CT and PET-CT were not obtained and would have been more sensitive for exposing areas of mycobacterial infection.

In conclusion, we demonstrated that endobronchial instillation of M. intracelluare reliably results in pulmonary mycobacterial infection in marmosets. The infection is associated with a reproducible immune reaction, radiographic abnormalities and histologic changes consistent with mycobacterial lung infection in humans. Additionally, the infection is indolent without visible acute harm or impact to the animal, similar to the M. intracellulare-associated lung disease in humans. We believe this model has the potential to answer questions about M. intracellulare disease pathophysiology as well as the natural history of M. intracellulare lung disease. To address those questions, future investigations will need to include longer post-exposure observations of the animals and more extensive investigation of pathophysiologic mechanisms.

Acknowledgments

We are grateful to Lore Fornis for expert help with the graphs and to Dr. Matthew Strand and Aastha Khatiwanda PhD in the Biostatistics Department at National Jewish Health for intellectual input and statistical analysis.

Data Availability

All relevant data are located at Dryad (doi:10.5061/dryad.jdfn2z3cr).

Funding Statement

Harry L. Willett Foundation, Denver, CO. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. The authors received no specific funding for this work.

References

  • 1.Daniel-Wayman S, Adjemian J, Prevots DR. Epidemiology of Nontuberculous Mycobacterial Pulmonary Disease (NTM PD) in the USA. In: Griffith DE (Ed), Nontuberculous Mycobacterial Disease: a comprehensive approach to diagnosis and management, 1st Edition, Springer Nature Switzerland AG, Cham, Switzerland; 2019. Pg 145–162. [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Wagner D, Lipman M, Cooray S, Ringshausen FC, Morimoto K, Koh W-J, et al. Global Epidemiology of NTM Disease (Except North America). In: Griffith DE (Ed), Nontuberculous Mycobacterial Disease: a comprehensive approach to diagnosis and management, 1st Edition, Springer Nature Switzerland AG, Cham, Switzerland; 2019. Pg 163–260. [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Holt MR, Daley CL. Mycobacterium avium complex Disease. In: Griffith DE (Ed), Nontuberculous Mycobacterial Disease: a comprehensive approach to diagnosis and management, 1st Edition, Springer Nature Switzerland AG, Cham, Switzerland; 2019. Pg 310–324. [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Cowman S, van Ingen J, Griffith DE, Loebinger MR. Non-tuberculous mycobacterial pulmonary disease. Eur Respir J. 2019. Jul 11;54(1). doi: 10.1183/13993003.00250-2019 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Griffith DE. Treatment of Mycobacterium avium Complex (MAC). Semin Respir Crit Care Med. 2018. Jun;39(3):351–361. doi: 10.1055/s-0038-1660472 Epub 2018 Aug 2. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Koh WJ, Jeong BH, Jeon K, Lee NY, Lee KS, Woo SY, et al. Clinical significance of the differentiation between Mycobacterium avium and Mycobacterium intracellulare in M. avium complex lung disease. Chest. 2012. Dec;142(6):1482–1488. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Kim SY, Shin SH, Moon SM, Yang B, Kim H, Kwon OJ, et al. Distribution and clinical significance of Mycobacterium avium complex species isolated from respiratory specimens. Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis. 2017. Jun;88(2):125–137. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Chan E. Vulnerability to Nontuberculous Mycobacterial Lung Disease or Systemic Infection Due to Genetic/Heritable Disorders. In: Griffith DE(Ed), Nontuberculous Mycobacterial Disease: a comprehensive approach to diagnosis and management, 1st Edition, Springer Nature Switzerland AG, Cham, Switzerland; 2019. Pg 89–110. [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Blanchard JD, Elias V, Cipolla D, Gonda I, Bermudez LE. Effective Treatment of Mycobacterium avium subsp. hominissuis and Mycobacterium abscessus Species Infections in Macrophages, Biofilm, and Mice by Using Liposomal Ciprofloxacin. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2018. Sep 24;62(10). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Winthrop K, Rivera A, Engelmann F, Rose S, Lewis A, Ku J, et al. A Rhesus Macaque Model of Pulmonary Nontuberculous Mycobacterial Disease. Am J Respir Cell Mol Biol. 2016. Feb;54(2):170–6. doi: 10.1165/rcmb.2015-0256RC [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Via LE, Weiner DM, Schimel D, Lin PL, Dayao E, Tankersley SL, et al. Differential virulence and disease progression following Mycobacterium tuberculosis complex infection of the common marmoset (Callithrix jacchus). Infect Immun. 2013. Aug;81(8):2909–19. doi: 10.1128/IAI.00632-13 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Via LE, England K, Weiner DM, Schimel D, Zimmerman MD, Dayao E, et al. A sterilizing tuberculosis treatment regimen is associated with faster clearance of bacteria in cavitary lesions in marmosets. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2015. Jul;59(7):4181–9. doi: 10.1128/AAC.00115-15 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Scanga CA, Flynn JL. Modeling tuberculosis in nonhuman primates. Cold Spring Harb Perspect Med. 2014. Sep 11;4(12): a018564. doi: 10.1101/cshperspect.a018564 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Cadena AM, Klein EC, White AG, Tomko JA, Chedrick CL, Reed DS, et al. Very Low Doses of Mycobacterium tuberculosis Yield Diverse Host Outcomes in Common Marmosets (Callithrix jacchus). Comp Med. 2016;66(5):412–419. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Weatherall D. The use of non-human primates in research. 2006. Available from, http://www.royalsoc.ac.uk/weatherall. [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals of the National Institutes of Health (NIH), the Office of Animal Welfare, 8th ED. National Academies Press, Washington DC; 2011. [Google Scholar]
  • 17.20: CLSI M24, Susceptibility Testing of Mycobacteria, Nocardia spp, and Other Aerobic Actinomycetes. 3rd Ed. Clinical Laboratory Standards Institute, Wayne, PA: 2018. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.CLSI M48, Laboratory Detection and Identification of Mycobacteria. 2nd Ed. Clinical Laboratory Standards Institute, Wayne, PA: 2018. [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Griffith DE, Adjemian J, Brown-Elliott BA, Philley JV, Prevots DR, Gaston C, et al. Semiquantitative Culture Analysis during Therapy for Mycobacterium avium Complex Lung Disease. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2015. Sep 15;192(6):754–60. doi: 10.1164/rccm.201503-0444OC [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Barnes PF, Lu S, Abrams JS, Wang E, Yamamura M, Modlin RL. Cytokine production at the site of disease in human tuberculosis. Infect Immun. 1993, Aug;61(8):3482–9. doi: 10.1128/iai.61.8.3482-3489.1993 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Das R, Koo MS, Kim BH, Jacob ST, Subbian S, Yao J, et al. Macrophage migration inhibitory factor (MIF) is a critical mediator of the innate immune response to Mycobacterium tuberculosis. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2013. Aug 6;110(32): E2997–3006. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1301128110 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Grieb Gerrit, Merk Melanie, Bernhagen Jürgen, Bucala Richard. Macrophage migration inhibitory factor (MIF): a promising biomarker. Drug News Perspect. 2010. May; 23(4): 257–264. doi: 10.1358/dnp.2010.23.4.1453629 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Griffith DE, Aksamit TR. Bronchiectasis and nontuberculous mycobacterial disease. Clin Chest Med. 2012. Jun;33(2):283–95. doi: 10.1016/j.ccm.2012.02.002 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Selvakumar Subbian

11 Jan 2022

PONE-D-21-34410A Marmoset Model for Mycobacterium avium Complex Pulmonary DiseasePLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Peters,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

==============================

ACADEMIC EDITOR: Although this is an interesting article that can improve our knowledge of preclinical animal models of mycobacterial pathogenesis, there are some issues that needs to be addressed through a major revision. Please refer to the reviewer comments and address their concerns on the manuscript as well as in the rebuttal letter. I suggest the authors to take this opportunity to thoroughly edit/revise the entire manuscript for typographical/grammatical errors and clarity of the figures etc.,==============================

Please submit your revised manuscript by Feb 25 2022 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Selvakumar Subbian, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. We note that the grant information you provided in the ‘Funding Information’ and ‘Financial Disclosure’ sections do not match.

When you resubmit, please ensure that you provide the correct grant numbers for the awards you received for your study in the ‘Funding Information’ section.

3. Thank you for stating the following financial disclosure:

“No The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.”

At this time, please address the following queries:

a)        Please clarify the sources of funding (financial or material support) for your study. List the grants or organizations that supported your study, including funding received from your institution.

b)        State what role the funders took in the study. If the funders had no role in your study, please state: “The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.”

c)        If any authors received a salary from any of your funders, please state which authors and which funders.

d)        If you did not receive any funding for this study, please state: “The authors received no specific funding for this work.”

Please include your amended statements within your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

4. In your Data Availability statement, you have not specified where the minimal data set underlying the results described in your manuscript can be found. PLOS defines a study's minimal data set as the underlying data used to reach the conclusions drawn in the manuscript and any additional data required to replicate the reported study findings in their entirety. All PLOS journals require that the minimal data set be made fully available. For more information about our data policy, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability.

Upon re-submitting your revised manuscript, please upload your study’s minimal underlying data set as either Supporting Information files or to a stable, public repository and include the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers within your revised cover letter. For a list of acceptable repositories, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-recommended-repositories. Any potentially identifying patient information must be fully anonymized.

Important: If there are ethical or legal restrictions to sharing your data publicly, please explain these restrictions in detail. Please see our guidelines for more information on what we consider unacceptable restrictions to publicly sharing data: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions. Note that it is not acceptable for the authors to be the sole named individuals responsible for ensuring data access.

We will update your Data Availability statement to reflect the information you provide in your cover letter.

5. We note that you have stated that you will provide repository information for your data at acceptance. Should your manuscript be accepted for publication, we will hold it until you provide the relevant accession numbers or DOIs necessary to access your data. If you wish to make changes to your Data Availability statement, please describe these changes in your cover letter and we will update your Data Availability statement to reflect the information you provide.

6. PLOS requires an ORCID iD for the corresponding author in Editorial Manager on papers submitted after December 6th, 2016. Please ensure that you have an ORCID iD and that it is validated in Editorial Manager. To do this, go to ‘Update my Information’ (in the upper left-hand corner of the main menu), and click on the Fetch/Validate link next to the ORCID field. This will take you to the ORCID site and allow you to create a new iD or authenticate a pre-existing iD in Editorial Manager. Please see the following video for instructions on linking an ORCID iD to your Editorial Manager account: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_xcclfuvtxQ

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: No

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: No

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: In this manuscript by Peters, et al., the authors seek to fill a major hole in MAC research- the lack of a tractable animal model. Marmosets have been used recently to model Mtb infection and appear to be quite susceptible to Mtb. Here, authors infected 7 marmosets bronchoscopically with high-dose M. intracellulare and 2/3 were culture-positive at necropsy 30 dpi; 3/4 at necropsy 60 dpi. BAL was culture-negative in all cases. There were signs of pneumonitis and some histopathology in the 5 infected animals, although all appeared clinically normal. Culture-positive animals exhibited higher cytokine levels in BALF and serum than did the uninfected animals. M. intracellulare resulted in a mild disease course in marmosets, consistent with MAC presentation in most humans. One issue with this study is that CXR is quite insensitive for detecting subtle changes in lungs and CT imaging would have much higher resolution. However, the authors do note this in the Discussion and the careful histopathology examination was capable of characterizing lung pathology.

The manuscript from leaders in the MAC field is well-written and the studies were well-designed and executed. Though done with a small number of animals (only 5 animals were apparently infected), this report does demonstrate some utility of the marmoset model and may useful for future studies of MAC. One downside to the model is the inconsistency in establishing infection.

The existing manuscript has no flaws that should preclude publication as-is. Only one minor concern lingers: Cytokines were measured with an Invitrogen 28-plex panel. Such multiplex panels have variable ability to detect cyto/chemokines from various NHP species. Was the ability to detect marmoset cyto/chemokines validated?

Reviewer #2: There are a number of questions and concerns regarding the manuscript:

1) Although it is recognized that the number of animals used in the study was limited, it is not possible to draw conclusions regarding the presence of productive/progressive lung infection in the infected animals based on lung CFU data. The endobronchial instillation of 1E8 CFU is very high and much higher than what a human would be exposed to in the natural environment. Interpretation is complicated by the lack of lung deposition CFU after inoculation which is standard in lung infection experiments. Finally, the choice of scoring positive cultures as countable colonies rather than a more standard criteria such as CFU per gram of lung tissue further clouds the interpretation. Within the countable colony from 1-49 the range is quite large, if 1 or 2 colonies were present this would represent negligible recovery of bacteria from the lung.

2) Minimal information is provided regarding the MAC strain used to infect the animals. It is stated that it is a clinical isolate. Why wasn’t a known strain of MAC used to allow comparison to other published studies? What were the clinical characteristics of the individual the isolate was obtained from, did that person have cavitary pulmonary MAC, were they transiently colonized etc.?

3) How does this model differentiate between the relatively self- limited condition of hypersensitivity pneumonitis which is observed in humans exposed to water in contaminated hot tubes compared to cavitary or fibronodular MAC in humans? The radiograph of marmoset lung looks and is reported as pneumonitis, not cavitary or nodular disease.

4) There is no description of how lung histopathology was assessed. Did a veterinary pathologist review the slides. Scanning morphometry would be the appropriate way to measure lung airways and make a determination that “early bronchiectasis”. Without this, no definitive conclusions can be drawn regarding the occurrence of bronchiectasis in this model.

5) The data suggest a self-limited resolving infection comparing D30 to D60. This does not mimic chronic progressive infection in humans.

6) It is not surprising that serum and lung cytokine levels are elevated in infected animals with an endobronchial instillation of 1E8 CFU. It is hard to draw any specific conclusions from the cytokine data.

7) The data does not support the following statement in the Discussion section – “The animals showed no discernable clinical signs of lung infection, such as cough, decreased activity or weight loss, suggesting that the inoculation resulted in a “sub-clinical” chronic infection.” Clinical infection in humans is accompanied by cough and weight loss. Without actual lung CFU data and without evidence progressive inflammation comparing D30 to D60 animals the data are not convincing for chronic infection as is seen in human pulmonary MAC infection.

8) The data does not support the following statement in the discussion – “This type of indolent infection is consistent with the nodular/bronchiectasis form of M. intracellulare lung disease in humans”. As stated above the evidence for chronic infection is not convincing, and the presented radiographic finding of “pneumonitis” is not consistent with chronic pulmonary MAC infection in humans.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2023 Mar 9;18(3):e0260563. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0260563.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0


18 Feb 2022

We would like to thank the reviewers for their time and efforts in revising our work. We believe that their comments further strengthen our manuscript. We have responded point-by-point to their comments.

Reviewer #1: In this manuscript by Peters, et al., the authors seek to fill a major hole in MAC research- the lack of a tractable animal model. Marmosets have been used recently to model Mtb infection and appear to be quite susceptible to Mtb. Here, authors infected 7 marmosets bronchoscopically with high-dose M. intracellulare and 2/3 were culture-positive at necropsy 30 dpi; 3/4 at necropsy 60 dpi. BAL was culture-negative in all cases. There were signs of pneumonitis and some histopathology in the 5 infected animals, although all appeared clinically normal. Culture-positive animals exhibited higher cytokine levels in BALF and serum than did the uninfected animals. M. intracellulare resulted in a mild disease course in marmosets, consistent with MAC presentation in most humans. One issue with this study is that CXR is quite insensitive for detecting subtle changes in lungs and CT imaging would have much higher resolution. However, the authors do note this in the Discussion and the careful histopathology examination was capable of characterizing lung pathology.

The manuscript from leaders in the MAC field is well-written and the studies were well-designed and executed. Though done with a small number of animals (only 5 animals were apparently infected), this report does demonstrate some utility of the marmoset model and may be useful for future studies of MAC. One downside to the model is the inconsistency in establishing infection.

The existing manuscript has no flaws that should preclude publication as-is. Only one minor concern lingers: Cytokines were measured with an Invitrogen 28-plex panel. Such multiplex panels have variable ability to detect cyto/chemokines from various NHP species. Was the ability to detect marmoset cyto/chemokines validated?

Response to Reviewer 1: Luis Giavedoni PhD, is the Senior Professor for the Biology Core for our Primate Center [Texas Biomedical Research Institute] and has validate both cytokines and chemokines for marmosets. The reviewer is correct in this comment since only a fraction of marmoset cytokines are detected with certain human-specific reagents. The M&M section pertaining to cytokine detection with the Luminex system has been modified as follows: The inflammatory environment was assessed for all of the subjects by evaluating circulating cytokine concentrations measured using the Luminex system as validated for marmosets and other nonhuman primates (Giavedoni, 2005; Höglind et al., 2017; Ross et al., 2019). The assay included evaluation of the following 18 analytes: interferon alpha (IFN-alpha), interferon gamma (IFN-γ), interleukin-1 beta (IL-1β), IL-1 receptor antagonist (IL-1RA), IL-2, IL-4, IL-7, IL-12 p40, IL-18, IL-23 monocyte chemoattractant protein 1 (MCP-1, CCL2), macrophage migration inhibitory factor (MIF), monokine induced by gamma interferon (MIG, CXCL9), macrophage inflammatory protein 1-alpha (MIP-1α, CCL3), MIP-1b (CCL4), regulated on activation, normal T cell expressed and secreted (RANTES, CCL5), tumor necrosis factor-alpha (TNF-α), and soluble intercellular adhesion molecule 1 (sICAM-1). Cytokine concentrations for infected animals were evaluated with multivariate ANOVA.

Giavedoni LD. Simultaneous detection of multiple cytokines and chemokines from nonhuman primates using luminex technology. J Immunol Methods. 2005 Jun;301(1-2):89-101.

Höglind A, Areström I, Ehrnfelt C, Masjedi K, Zuber B, Giavedoni L, Ahlborg N. Systematic evaluation of monoclonal antibodies and immunoassays for the detection of Interferon-γ and Interleukin-2 in old and new world non-human primates. J Immunol Methods. 2017 Feb;441:39-48.

Ross CN, Adams J, Gonzalez O, Dick E, Giavedoni L, Hodara VL, Phillips K, Rigodanzo AD, Kasinath B, Tardif SD. Cross-sectional comparison of health-span phenotypes in young versus geriatric marmosets. Am J Primatol. 2019 Feb;81(2):e22952.

Reviewer #2: There are a number of questions and concerns regarding the manuscript:

1) Although it is recognized that the number of animals used in the study was limited, it is not possible to draw conclusions regarding the presence of productive/progressive lung infection in the infected animals based on lung CFU data. The endobronchial instillation of 1E8 CFU is very high and much higher than what a human would be exposed to in the natural environment. Interpretation is complicated by the lack of lung deposition CFU after inoculation which is standard in lung infection experiments. Finally, the choice of scoring positive cultures as countable colonies rather than a more standard criteria such as CFU per gram of lung tissue further clouds the interpretation. Within the countable colony from 1-49 the range is quite large, if 1 or 2 colonies were present this would represent negligible recovery of bacteria from the lung.

Response 1: The inoculum of Mycobacterium avium complex was chosen based on an inoculation dose causing MAC disease in rhesus macaques (Am J Respir Cell Mol Biol; 54(2):170-176). This study was not intended to investigate a dose-response threshold for establishing MAC infection in marmosets. That type of study would require a large number of animals and enormous expense. Rather, the goal of this project was simply to determine if establishing pulmonary MAC infection was possible in the marmoset. Choosing an inoculation dose shown to cause pulmonary disease in another primate model appeared to offer the best chances of success with the least number of animals. To the reviewer’s point about MAC inoculum in human disease, we submit that inoculum is unknown. Likely for humans, the size of the inoculum is not as important as the duration of the exposure. Additionally, in humans, structural lung disease such as bronchiectasis appears to be necessary for MAC infection in the majority of cases so that it is not surprising in an animal with a normal tracheobronchial tree a relatively large inoculum would be required to establish infection. It is also noteworthy that most current animal models for MAC disease require some systemic immune suppression or interruption of airway defenses or architecture. In that regard, the marmoset model offers the opportunity to assess MAC infection in an uncomplicated way.

2) Minimal information is provided regarding the MAC strain used to infect the animals. It is stated that it is a clinical isolate. Why wasn’t a known strain of MAC used to allow comparison to other published studies? What were the clinical characteristics of the individual the isolate was obtained from, did that person have cavitary pulmonary MAC, were they transiently colonized etc.?

Response 2: We chose this MAC strain because it was both macrolide and amikacin resistant. The chances of finding a “wild-type” MAC isolate with both macrolide and amikacin resistance is vanishingly small. Having this in vitro susceptibility pattern eliminated the need (and expense) for genotyping isolates recovered from the animals in comparison to the instilled MAC isolate. There was no doubt that the infecting organism was the organism that had been instilled. The isolate came from a cystic fibrosis patient with extensive MAC infection who had failed therapy with macrolide and amikacin containing regimens after developing macrolide and amikacin resistance. We knew, therefore, that it was a pathogenic isolate and that it could be easily identified.

3) How does this model differentiate between the relatively self- limited condition of hypersensitivity pneumonitis which is observed in humans exposed to water in contaminated hot tubes compared to cavitary or fibronodular MAC in humans? The radiograph of marmoset lung looks and is reported as pneumonitis, not cavitary or nodular disease.

Response 3: Hypersensitivity MAC infection in humans is a diffuse process radiographically associated with the acute onset of symptoms (cough, dyspnea). None of the animals were symptomatic and none had radiographic findings consistent with hypersensitivity pneumonitis. We agree that the animals appeared to have an acute focal process consistent with pneumonitis. We submit that both fibrocavitary disease and nodular/bronchiectatic disease are chronic manifestations of MAC lung disease. Early or primary events in human MAC lung disease are unknown. There is no model of the form fruste of MAC lung disease. It is not known, for instance if there is latent MAC infection similar to TB. To determine if over time marmoset develops fibrocavitary disease or nodular/bronchiectatic disease would require a much longer study, although some exhibited bronchiectasis even at 60 days. We think the marmoset could be an appropriate animal model to make that determination for MAC lung disease but that was not in the scope of this initial trial to determine if infection could be established.

4) There is no description of how lung histopathology was assessed. Did a veterinary pathologist review the slides. Scanning morphometry would be the appropriate way to measure lung airways and make a determination that “early bronchiectasis”. Without this, no definitive conclusions can be drawn regarding the occurrence of bronchiectasis in this model.

Response 4: The lung tissue was examined by Dr. Jackie Colson, an internationally recognized PhD in Pulmonary Pathology. She is recognized as an expert in primate pathology with over 50 publications on lung injury in non-human primates. The tissue was processed by in coronal sections to allow better visualization of airways and morphometry. Each lobe was read independently by Dr. Coalson and reviewed in our pulmonary pathology research conference. The definition of bronchiectasis was the lack of airways reduction in diameter and the extension of the dilated airway extending to the pleural surface or within 1 mm of the pleura. We chose the term “early bronchiectasis” rather than “persistent bronchiectasis” since we only followed the animals out to 60 days.

Examples of a few of Dr. Coalson’s nonhuman primate articles include:

Yoder BA, Coalson JJ. Animal models of bronchopulmonary dysplasia. The preterm baboon models. Am J Physiol Lung Cell Mol Physiol. 2014 Dec 15;307(12):L970-7.

Coalson JJ, Winter V, deLemos RA. Decreased alveolarization in baboon survivors with bronchopulmonary dysplasia. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 1995 Aug;152(2):640-6.

Coalson JJ, Winter VT, Gerstmann DR, Idell S, King RJ, Delemos RA. Pathophysiologic, morphometric, and biochemical studies of the premature baboon with bronchopulmonary dysplasia. Am Rev Respir Dis. 1992 Apr;145(4 Pt 1):872-81.

de los Santos R, Coalson JJ, Holcomb JR, Johanson WG Jr. Hyperoxia exposure in mechanically ventilated primates with and without previous lung injury. Exp Lung Res. 1985;9(3-4):255-75.

5) The data suggest a self-limited resolving infection comparing D30 to D60. This does not

mimic chronic progressive infection in humans.

Response 5: As discussed under #3, it is incompletely understood what the manifestations (clinical, microbiologic and radiographic) of primary MAC infection in humans are. The infected animals did lose weight during the first 2 weeks of the study and then tended to return toward baseline even though the intake of food and water was maintained. This point was added to the manuscript and reflected in the data presented in Table 1. We did not follow the animals long enough to determine if the infections would completely resolve or transiently improve and then recur (similar to primary TB) or if the animals would develop a latent infection (similar to latent TB infection). It is even possible that the marmoset response we observed is applicable to human MAC lung disease, which is why developing animal models is so important. There is simply not enough known about early MAC infection in humans to make definitive conclusions.

6) It is not surprising that serum and lung cytokine levels are elevated in infected animals with an endobronchial instillation of 1E8 CFU. It is hard to draw any specific conclusions from the cytokine data.

Response 6: The reviewer raises a valid point. Yet, we do not think it is very plausible that the MAC instillation per se caused the cytokine elevations. The MAC instillation was associated with an acute inflammatory event in the lung consistent with pneumonitis due to MAC infection. In two animals, we instilled the same number of CFU of M. Abscessus and found no cytokine response and normal histopathology 30 days after inoculation. The animals receiving MAC clearly had granulomatous inflammation and pneumonitis on pathologic exam and the cytokines remained elevated in the BAL at day 60.

7) The data does not support the following statement in the Discussion section – “The animals showed no discernable clinical signs of lung infection, such as cough, decreased activity or weight loss, suggesting that the inoculation resulted in a “sub-clinical” chronic infection.” Clinical infection in humans is accompanied by cough and weight loss. Without actual lung CFU data and without evidence progressive inflammation comparing D30 to D60 animals the data are not convincing for chronic infection as is seen in human pulmonary MAC infection.

Response 7: We agree with the reviewer. The word “chronic” has been deleted. We agree with the reviewer that with the comment that the observation that the infection was “sub-clinical”.

8) The data does not support the following statement in the discussion – “This type of indolent infection is consistent with the nodular/bronchiectasis form of M. intracellulare lung disease in humans”. As stated above the evidence for chronic infection is not convincing, and the presented radiographic finding of “pneumonitis” is not consistent with chronic pulmonary MAC infection in humans.

Response 8: We agree with the Reviewer’s comment and we have corrected the manuscript accordingly and removed the statement.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers Final 2 08 2022 .docx

Decision Letter 1

Selvakumar Subbian

9 Jun 2022

PONE-D-21-34410R1A Marmoset Model for Mycobacterium avium Complex Pulmonary DiseasePLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Peters,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

==============================

ACADEMIC EDITOR: Though the authors have elaborately justified their views to reviewer comments, Several key points, related to limitations of the study, are missing in the revised manuscript itself. The authors should incorporate their response to reviewers into the discussion section that deals with limitations of the study. For example, the following should be mentioned: The inoculum of Mycobacterium avium complex was chosen based on an inoculation dose causing MAC disease in rhesus macaques (Am J Respir Cell Mol Biol; 54(2):170-176). This study was not intended to investigate a dose-response threshold for establishing MAC infection in marmosets. That type of study would require a large number of animals and enormous expense. Rather, the goal of this project was simply to determine if establishing pulmonary MAC infection was possible in the marmoset. Choosing an inoculation dose shown to cause pulmonary disease in another primate model appeared to offer the best chances of success with the least number of animals. To the reviewer’s point about MAC inoculum in human disease, we submit that inoculum is unknown. Likely for humans, the size of the inoculum is not as important as the duration of the exposure. Additionally, in humans, structural lung disease such as bronchiectasis appears to be necessary for MAC infection in the majority of cases so that it is not surprising in an animal with a normal tracheobronchial tree a relatively large inoculum would be required to establish infection. It is also noteworthy that most current animal models for MAC disease require some systemic immune suppression or interruption of airway defenses or architecture. In that regard, the marmoset model offers the opportunity to assess MAC infection in an uncomplicated way.Similarly, the number of animals per timepoint (n=3-4) and usage of one sex (female) are confounding factors for proper statistical analysis. This should be mentioned in the discussion.

Revising the manuscript with these point would address the concern of the new reviewer comments posted below. 

==============================

Please submit your revised manuscript by Jul 24 2022 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Selvakumar Subbian, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #3: (No Response)

********** 

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #3: No

********** 

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #3: No

********** 

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #3: Yes

********** 

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #3: Yes

********** 

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #3: Authors has to carried out a marmoset model of animal experiment to study the pathogenesis of nontuberculous mycobacterial disease. After infection, authors monitored several disease parameters including bacterial burden in several organs, cytokine levels and histopathology at 30 and 60 days of post infection. However, this study has to face the following concerns.

Major comments:

Even though all marmosets were infected with high dose of inoculum (10E8 of MAC) by endobronchial inoculation, infection was established in only 5 animals out 7 marmosets. This result indicate that more than 25% animals did not get infection. Has this study enough statistical power to bring any conclusion?

The authors concluded that this study would be useful to recapitulate M. avium complex lung infection in humans. However, proper standardization of inoculum should be carried out to establish infection in all infected marmosets with minimum standard deviation.

********** 

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #3: No

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

Decision Letter 2

Selvakumar Subbian

20 Sep 2022

PONE-D-21-34410R2A Marmoset Model for Mycobacterium avium Complex Pulmonary DiseasePLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Peters,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

==============================

ACADEMIC EDITOR: Please address the following: 

Table-1. The numbering (superscripts and non-superscript) is very confusing and hard to understand. Please re-organize the descriptions.

Figure-1. Scale bar and magnification are missing; please add this info on the image and/or mention in the legend.

Figure-3. Specify what the arrow denotes?. Scale bar and magnification are missing; please add this info on the image and/or mention in the legend.

==============================

Please submit your revised manuscript by Nov 04 2022 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Selvakumar Subbian, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #3: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #3: Partly

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #3: I Don't Know

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #3: (No Response)

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #3: No

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2023 Mar 9;18(3):e0260563. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0260563.r006

Author response to Decision Letter 2


29 Nov 2022

Reviewer #1 suggested publication but questioned if the 28 plex used for this study had been validated. We pointed out that this 28 Plex cytokine/chemokine assay was validated by one of our authors and submitted the publication for review. This PLEX has been used by the Texas Biomedical Research institute for all of our NIH studies over the past 20 years.

Reviewer #2 questioned if the pathologist that reviewed the marmoset histology had prior experience with non-human primates pathology. We submitted over 15 articles written by Dr. Jacqueline Coalson: a PhD pulmonary pathologist who reviewed all our NIH ARDS non-human primate studies (an 8 year Program Project). She has also been the pulmonary pathologist reviewing all the neonatal baboon studies performed at our institution.The reviewer also stated that using such a high dose of MAC may have accounted for why we observed the pathological changes at necropsy; however, we instilled the same concentration of organism with M. abscessus and had no radiological or pathological changes in 3 marmosets. The reviewer also questioned our use of the term "early bronchiectasis" and we explained that even though the airway extended to the pleura that we only followed the marmoset for 60 days. Therefore, we could not prove these findings would persist over a longer period of observation [thus we used the term "early bronchiectasis"].

The 3rd reviewer stated he was unable to determine if the study was scientifically sound. We had no statistical analysis to support our observations. We asked the statistician at National Jewish Medical Center to independently review the cytokine data and determine if it was statistically significant and supported our observations. He concluded that the serial cytokine data that was obtained at baseline and on a weekly basis were statistically significant. We feel this analysis significantly strengthens our submission. Additionally, only one other study in the medical literature has demonstrated the ability to reproduce MAC in a non-human primate model (in 1 out of 3 animals). We feel all the questions from the reviewers have been adequately addressed and feel this manuscript adds important information to the medical literature.

Attachment

Submitted filename: ACADEMIC EDITOR Response 11 27 2022.docx

Decision Letter 3

Selvakumar Subbian

1 Dec 2022

A Marmoset Model for Mycobacterium avium Complex Pulmonary Disease

PONE-D-21-34410R3

Dear Dr. Peters,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Selvakumar Subbian, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Acceptance letter

Selvakumar Subbian

21 Dec 2022

PONE-D-21-34410R3

A Marmoset Model for Mycobacterium avium Complex Pulmonary Disease

Dear Dr. Peters:

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Selvakumar Subbian

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Associated Data

    This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

    Supplementary Materials

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers Final 2 08 2022 .docx

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers 1-3 Final 7 15 2022 .docx

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: ACADEMIC EDITOR Response 11 27 2022.docx

    Data Availability Statement

    All relevant data are located at Dryad (doi:10.5061/dryad.jdfn2z3cr).


    Articles from PLOS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES